NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/ca/environm/1214

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 11.0 KB | 242 lines

Newsgroups: ca.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!llyene!jato!quake!brian
From: [e-mail] (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Rights are *always* "unalienable"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Quake Public Access
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 12:47:25 GMT
Lines: 231

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan McGowen) writes:
>/ hpindda:ca.environment / [e-mail] (Brian K. Yoder) /  2:31 am  Jan 19, 1993 /
>>In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Alan McGow
>>en) writes:

>>>Issues about the long-range health of ecosystems and the biosphere *must*
>>>be handled by a political process, and cannot be left up to market processes.

>>Why?  Because you don't believe that property rights are unalienable?

>Property rights are not, never have been, and never will be "unalienable".

What makes you think so?  Without any justification, such an argument
falls with the slightest breeze.

The fact is that people are morally entitled to control their lives and the
product of their work and to trade and coorperate VOLUNTARILY with one another.
This is the case regardless of how severely the government may trample on such
rights...they are still rights.

>No society that ever has or ever will exist will completely detach property
>rights -- or *any* rights -- from all consequences.

I didn't suggest that, I merely said that rights exist regardless of government
actions.  Just because a government passdes a law legalizing murder, that
doesn't make it morally acceptable.  Do you deny this?

>Libertarians/Randoids are fond of claiming that their system "has never been
>tried".

It WAS "tried" (although with a few flaws) in the US in the 19th century, and
the result was the transformation of a few isolated colonies into the center
of economic growth and intellectual development of the world in just a century.
Actually, it's usually the socialists who like to claim that capitalism
has never been tried.

I also would like you to refrain from refering to objectivists and Libertarians
as though they stood for the same thing...they do not.

>It never will be either, if it is founded (as it seems to be) on the principle
>that principle ought to override reality come hell or high water.

On the contrary, the principle is that proper principles derive from facts
of reality and that if a principle is not good in practice, then it is not
a good principle.

>That would
>be suicidal, and wise -- or even middling muddle-through -- societies are
>not suicidal.

Why is demanding that a government respect individual rights suicidal?
Just what do you think would happen if the government is prevented from
violating people's rights?  Why didn't these disasters befall the US in the
19th century?

>When you strip away the moral absolutism from the basis of Libertarianism,

If you look at the philosophical outlook of the libertarians, they are
just the opposite of moral absolutists...they are generally nihilists of
a certain sort.  Objectivists on the other hand are not.  Get your opponents
straight.

>and allow enough compromise to make it even slightly viable, what you get
>is Reaganism.

He certainly compromised a lot.  What would you say his compromise was
between?  Rights and their violation?  Why is that better than adherence
to moral principles?

>We tried that, it created a disaster, and now we are paying
>for it.

Paying for what?  The vast deficit spending?  Since you admit that Reagan
was a compromiser, you need to determine whether it was his (few) principled
actions which caused the problems you refer to or if it was the compromise
and corruption of those principles.

To use an analogy, if a patient is treated with arsenic and antibiotics
both, and his condition worsens as a result of the treatment, would it
be rational to conclude that it was the antibiotics which were the cause
of the worsened condition?

>To the extent that Libertarianism were "really" tried, it would
>create an even bigger disaster.

If you are talking about libertarianism per se, I agree, but then again, I have
never tried to defend THEM.  If you are talking about laissez faire capitalism
along an objectivist model, your assertion rings pretty hollow without some
kind of analysis.  If we look around the world and through history, the most
successful societies have quite consistently been the more capitalistic and
ones which defended individual rights, while the most dreadful human
slaughterhouses and poverty pits have been those which were the least
capitalistic.

>But its chance is over now. It will fade out and be forgotten with time,
>like other ideological extremisms of the cold war era.

I don't think I or any of my associates are going to fade out.  You and your
socialist/totalitarian friends on the other hand seem to be on the way out
as far as I can see.  Given the lessons of 20th century history, why would
anyone want to adopt the kind of omnipotent government you propose?

>Yoder also spreads the usual right wing

What makes you think I'm "right wing"?  I'm an objectivist!

>extremist, anti-democracy lie that
>market values are the totality of all values,

I certainly didn't say that.  Market values are the RESULT of individual
evaluations.  If you really think that's what I'm saying, you ought to
study a bit more closely.  You have no idea what my position is.

>and that there are no societal
>political or legal values which may be adopted by due process:

What you seem intent on ignoring is that what I'm opposed to is NOT governments
as such, but governments which violate individual rights.  Laws that
define penalties for murder are just fine.  Laws that legalize it are not.

>>Markets for
>>resources do a pretty good job of evaluating the real values people place on
>>the things and processes in question and motivate other choices accordingly.
>>Now, if you think that sum of economic values ought not to be followed, you
>>can hardly claim to be in any worthwhile sense in favor of "democracy"...what
>>you favor is a system where your clique rules over everyone else.

>What I think is that anyone who denies the right of representative government
>to determine societal values and actions that go beyond the "sum of (market)
>economic values" is denying the legitimate government of the United States
>of America, and is an enemy of the Constitution.

I think that anyone who could write this has no concept of the meaning of
limited government, individual rights, or the intent of the authors of
the constitution.  There is certainly a school of political belief that
says that no power ought to be beyond the realm of proper government
activity...it's called totalitarianism, and you obviously subscribe to it.
To argue that the US Constitution justifies such totalitarianism is
either gross ignorance or gross dishonesty.

>Your own freedom to speak
>this infamy is a *nonmarket* political value which is protected by the very
>Constitution and political process which you seek to undermine with your
>vicious doctrine that only markets and private wealth should determine all
>that is valuable,

You really don;t get it do you?  I am "undermining" the power of the government
to rob and tryanize its citizens...something quite consistent with the
constitution, and proper moral and political theory.  Look.  You can either
argue that the government ought to have unlimited power, or you can argue
that unlimited government is what the US constitution calls for.  To argue
the first is to seek to undermine every individual liberty including that
of free speech.  To argue the second is ludicrous on the face of it.  Go read
the Federalist and the Constitution.

>and should govern every aspect of our lives.

On the contrary...I think that each individual should govern every aspect of
his life, and not be a pawn of the party in power, or the majority, or the
AQMD.

>*Citizens* of a *democracy* will not be subjugated by such a pernicious
>lie -- such a latter-day Circe's spell -- which attempts to reduce us
>to nothing more than *appetites* at a *supermarket*.

I said no such thing.  I think that citizens ought to be FREE to do as they
choose as long as they are honest and peaceful.  To argue that that is some
kind of violation of moral principles calls into question just what sort of
principles you are advocating.

So, you think that absolute democracy is morally proper?  What about
minority rights?  What if 51% hates blacks, or gays, or jews, or HP employees?
Should those people be denied choices in how to live their lives?  How
to speak?  How to trade?  How to have sexual realtions?  How to work?
Indeed, whether one may live at all?

I think a constitutional republic with democratically elected officers is the
best way to do, and surprise...that's that the authors of the constitution
intended.  Do you seriously not agree that this is what they wrote and
intended?  It's clear you disagree with it, but you can't put words into
Jefferson's mouth like that.

>*Citizens* recognize
>that beyond market values and "economic sums" there are values of public
>interest, social justice,

The idea that taking property one man has earned and giving it to another who
has not earned it involves "justice" of ANY kind if simply incredible.  Under
what definition of "justice" can this be condoned?

Just what do you mean by "public interest"?  Isn't that the same thing as
"government power"?  Or rather, in your case, unlimited government power?
Isn't that totalitarianism?

>and moral responsibility -- and that among
>these is the responsibility not to bequeath future generations a biosphere
>that is irreversibly worse for our having existed.

Where does that responsibility come from?  How can you prove that this
responsibility exists?  Additionally, who are you to tell me what is better
or worse for future generations?  Is it better to leave this forest alone
or build a house which will stand for 100 years?  Who are you to manage MY
property?  Who are you to manage MY life?  My labor?  MY family?  MY education?
MY income?

>You, sir, are a true enemy of Democracy

If by "democracy", you mean the unlimited power of the majority to crush anyone
with whom it disagrees, I am most strongly opposed to it.  If you mean the
democratic choice of officers to administer the functions of a limited
government, it is absolutely false.

>and of your Country.

On the contrary, it is people like you who think they have the right to
rule over every respect of people's lives regardless of their natural rights,
who are the enemies of this country.  Fortunately, with the downfall of
your idealogical brothers in arms, the Nazis, and the Communists, I expect
your star will wane.

>Fortunately,
>you and your faction are quite powerless to do really significant harm for
>the foreseeable future, though you will undoubtedly make what mischief you
>can at every opportunity.

I suppose time will tell.  Don't you think that your lack of any coherent
moral or epistemological foundation is a long-term problem for totalitarian
views such as your own?

--Brian